Temple Terrace to Observe ‘Stop on Red Week’

The nationwide campaign runs Aug. 5-11 and will see Temple Terrace police officers stepping up enforcement.

The City of Temple Terrace is serious about encouraging motorists to stop at red lights.

The community has five cameras to photograph and cite those who run red traffic signals. In 2008, the city installed cameras westbound on Bullard Parkway at 56th Street and southbound on 56th Street at Fowler Avenue. Last year, .

Now, Temple Terrace is joining communities across the country in support of National Stop on Red Week, according to a city press release. From Aug. 5-11, the will step up enforcement during the campaign to ensure the community’s busy roadways remain safe.

Sponsored by the National Campaign to Stop Red Light Running, the week is dedicated to reducing red-light running in the United States and the fatalities and injuries it causes, the release states. The national campaign aims to better inform the public and their elected officials about the seriousness of running red lights, as well as the law enforcement practices and tools that can make roadways safer.

In 2010, 667 people were killed and more than 100,000 injured as a result of crashes involving red-light running, according to the Insurance Coalition for Safer Roads, the release states.

“The traffic camera safety program is intended to protect motorists, passengers, cyclists and pedestrians from crashes caused by red-light runners,” the release states.

“Since Temple Terrace installed its first traffic-safety cameras in 2008, the number of red-light violations has decreased by 67 percent, according to the Temple Terrace Police Department.”

The City of Temple Terrace is one of more than 70 communities in Florida and 500 nationwide that use the hotly contested cameras to enhance highway safety.

Temple Terrace’s red-light traffic camera program is administered by American Traffic Solutions Inc. Each violation is reviewed and approved by the Temple Terrace Police Department before the registered owner of the vehicle is issued a citation. The fine for a first offense is $158.

However, some motorists say they think that red-light cameras are an abuse of local and state governments’ power. A website called Ban the Cams is a self-described grassroots organization that aims to “restore freedom and sanity to our roadways.” They had a protest at the intersection of Bullard Parkway and 56th Street in 2010.

Temple Terrace Patch readers commenting on previous red-light camera stories represent both sides of the issue.

“I definitely am in favor of keeping the cameras,” said reader . “Those opposed are most likely the ones that fear getting ticketed because they are the offenders of red-light running.”

Another reader disagreed.

“Of course stopping at red lights is a good thing,” said , “but I would rather help drivers(and safety) by lengthening the yellow light time and truly making intersections safer, instead of punishing normally safe driver for technical fouls like rolling over the stop line before coming to a complete stop, or making a right turn on red, and making everyone paranoid about running afoul of the eyes in the sky.”

See also:


SHARON ALVAREZ August 03, 2012 at 12:28 PM
Thank God for these cameras! I live & work in Temple Terrace for over 20yrs. The people who are against the cameras must be offenders because if I remember correctly, the Florida Driver License Handbook states it a violation for running a red light and the definition includes coming to a FULL STOP! On Dec 2, 2001,my daughter who was 17yrs @ that time, was turning into our subdivision "Raintree" when a 16yr old ran a redlight @ Fowler & Raintree Bld. I was driving home when I witnessed an accident that JUST happened! It was MY DAUGHTER who had been hit by this 16yr old. My daughter who was UNCONSCIOUS had to be cut out of her car and ambulanced to Pediatric Trauma Ctr@ TGH as well as the girls in the other vehicle. Not to mention, we had just lost my husband to sudden death 5months earlier!!! CAN YOU IMAGINE HOW IT MUST FEEL TO DRIVE UP ON ACCIDENT LIKE THIS AND IT'S YOUR CHILD??? WAKE UP PEOPLE!!! Thank God she only has permanent back injuries! Temple Terrace Police have done a great job with these cameras! I am thankful for the policeman who ticketed the other party for this accident. I had to fight for justice for over 3yrs to get compensation for all of her injuries NOT to mention that her brand new car was totalled! Had there been cameras then- Wow! WAKE UP PEOPLE! Cameras are a wonderful tool for our safety! Sharon Smallwood Alvarez - the parent of Jamie Hope Osborne Hernandez
Stephen August 03, 2012 at 12:49 PM
THE RLC DO NOT WORK! In fact the videos these vendors POST SHOWING RLV crashes IRONICALLY CAPTURED BY A RLC PROVE THE RLC DO NOT WORK! Why don't they just call it "SCAM ON RED WEEK" That is about what this is. Do you know that National Campaing to Stop RLR WAS FUNDED AND FOUNDED BY CAMERA VENDORS???? http://www.motorists.org/red-light-cameras/biggest-supporters Quote: "Far from being a group of grass-roots safety do-gooders, the organization is actually in the business of selling expensive red-light cameras to communities. The national campaign is run by a Washington, D.C., public relations agency that was hired by the nation's biggest operator of traffic surveillance systems."
Stephen August 03, 2012 at 12:51 PM
IN Fact ATS FUND THEIR OWN FRONT GROUP National Coalition for Safer Roads. http://www.thenewspaper.com/news/35/3585.asp "Documents incorporating NCSR Inc as a nonprofit entity in the state of Missouri confirm that NCSR is anything but the independent campaign of "victims, parents, medical professionals and first responders" as the group's publicity material suggests. NCSR's board of directors instead consists of three individuals: James D. Tuton, ATS president; George J. Hittner, ATS General Counsel; and Charles Territo, ATS spokesman."
Stephen August 03, 2012 at 12:51 PM
RLC ARE A FRAUD! Heck in ATS St. Pete a former FHP FOUND THE CITY's 60% "reduction" FALSE! http://www.thenewspaper.com/news/38/3827.asp or http://www.thenewspaper.com/rlc/docs/2012/fl-spanalysis.pdf Quote: In the "before" period, there were a total of 6, 12 and 10 accidents in 2008, 2009 and 2010 respectively -- for an overall average of 9.3. After the cameras were activated, there were ten crashes total. At five intersections, accidents increased. At four intersections, they decreased. The remaining intersection stayed the same. "Utilizing the data from the city, there is no way to arrive at a 60 percent reduction in crashes caused by red light running," Henry concluded. "However, the director did not say crashes caused by red light running, he used the term 'red-light related' crashes. This parsing of words is of little relevance in light of the factual data obtained and analyzed. The statement of any reduction cannot be supported with the data available, which shows the average increased post-camera by 7 percent."
Stephen August 03, 2012 at 12:53 PM
AS for the "violation" claims REALIZE THAT VENDORS LIKE ATS HAVE BEEN BUSTED MANIPULATING that in the past. http://www.thenewspaper.com/news/31/3173.asp Quote: "Baytown, Texas is easing up on issuing red light camera tickets in the hopes of diverting momentum away from a planned effort to place a photo enforcement ban on the ballot. Resident Byron Schirmbeck and a team of volunteers expect soon to turn in a second petition forcing a referendum. Statistics show that, in response, city officials and American Traffic Solutions have deliberately issued fewer citations. The program rejected 29 percent of violations in July 2008, but documents show the rate of rejections climbed to 54 percent in December." FIGHT THE FRAUD! Ban the CAMS! www.motorists.org www.banthecams.org camerafraud on Facebook. Read here on more questionable safety claims from towns that use ATS: http://www.banthecams.org/1946-six-examples-of-misleading-the-public-safety-claims-by-towns-who-use-ats.html
Stephen August 03, 2012 at 12:55 PM
Here is ATS (by use of a Front Man) latest game, DENYING THE PUBLIC A RIGHT TO VOTE ON BANNING RLC! http://www.banthecams.org/Court-Decisions/democracy-denied-in-murrieta-ca-by-ats-front-man-ats-still-qdeniesq-they-are-involved.html Or http://www.thenewspaper.com/news/38/3849.asp (BILL KROSKE IS A SUPPOSEDLY LET GO VP in 2011 who still seems to HAVE A ATS EMAIL IN 2012!) Quote: On March 27, Murrieta Police Corporal Jay Froboese emailed Kroske to let him know the city manager decided not to extend the city's red light camera contract with ATS in light of the pending referendum vote. This infuriated Kroske, who immediately contacted Murrieta Mayor Douglas R. McAllister. "We had thought that we were in accord to help defeat the initiative in November as it is a bad policy to have for certain city decisions, such as public safety, decided by public vote," Kroske wrote. "In Washington State, we have fought this approach in the courts and at every level -- attached is the latest decision. We attempted to have a discussion on such an option for you, but could get a conference with your attorney or city manager." Kroske referenced the lawsuit against the Mukilteo referendum that he filed using the name of a local resident to disguise ATS involvement in the suit. ATS counsel Vanessa Soriano Power even told the Washington Supreme Court that the company was not behind the suit, even though Kroske's emails from July 2011 suggest that is not true.
Paul Henry August 03, 2012 at 05:10 PM
"The people who are against the cameras must be offenders" I'm not. I'm a retired Florida trooper and have investigated many crashes. The second crash I worked as a traffic homicide investigator involved a small child that rode their bike into oncoming traffic. No one can ever understand why crashes like those happen. "if I remember correctly, the Florida Driver License Handbook states it a violation for running a red light and the definition includes coming to a FULL STOP! " More important than that, we had a system in America where the government, not the people, was required to prove guilt in court. Not so for automated for-profit device tickets. The owner is guilty and must provide an excuse or say someone else had the vehicle when they eventually are allowed to go to court. We have the right to due process- going to court- which is denied under the automated for-profit device law until a more expensive ticket is issued. We have the right to reasonable fines and punishments- not a $100 surcharge and points just because an officer gave out the ticket for the same violation. Also of great importance is the fact that only about 1.2% of all crashes in Florida where a cause was listed were shown as being caused by red light running. I've studied the device use in several Florida cities with crash data, and the fact is they do not prevent crashes. If there is a distracted or impaired driver that cannot see a red signal, how is it a device will magically make them stop?
Paul Henry August 03, 2012 at 05:22 PM
“Since Temple Terrace installed its first traffic-safety cameras in 2008, the number of red-light violations has decreased by 67 percent, according to the Temple Terrace Police Department.” To Ms. Reams- you are a reporter, please investigate and report. "Violations" are not a reliable benchmark. The for-profit vendor can simply turn off the device for an amount of time to skew the data. The police do not control these devices, the vendors such as ATS do. The public will never know if this is done. The only benchmark that counts are crashes. How many caused by red light running took place in a set period of time at these intersections prior to the use of automated for-profit devices? How many in the same amount of time afterwards? Any police administrator can tell you crashes, like other offenses, vary by location and year. One intersection may only have 12 crashes in a year, then the next year have 20, or vice-versa. Ask the city for crash reports. Read my crash analyses and other reports here: http://bit.ly/MyNiVt I publish my Florida crash data. Do any of these cities? Automated for-profit law enforcement is a bad idea.
Temple Terrace resident August 03, 2012 at 09:11 PM
Sad that they need to dedicate a week to what should be common sense. Kinda like having a National Dental Hygiene Week.
Rollo Tomasi August 04, 2012 at 12:22 AM
it's nothing more than a money maker for the city, plain and simple. If not why would they move the cameras when violations are negligible. because they are not making money!!!! ATS is a racket and Temple Terrace is a co conspirator.
Thin blue line August 04, 2012 at 01:01 AM
The cameras have never been moved. What you have likely seen is the company doing surveys to see if there is a need at other intersections for cameras to be installed.
Thin blue line August 04, 2012 at 01:05 AM
Mr Henry, you have put a lot of work behind this. Let me ask you...which is the worse idea? Putting up cameras at major intersections where a need has been established and success has been demonstrated at changing the behavior of certain violators of a public safety threat? Or touting yourself as a former "law enforcement expert" (for personal profit, I might add) and railing against red light cameras because they are the current "hot topic?"
St Pete Driver August 04, 2012 at 02:15 AM
The decrease in violations is a direct result of the Wandall act being enforced in Temple Terrace. Before the Wandall act, they sent out citations for every right turn on red violation, even stopping over the line, then proceeding. At that point in time the right turns on red made up over 90% of the red light camera violations there. After the Wandall Act went into effect in July of 2010, Hillsborough county judges threw out any right turn on red violation under 15 mph. This had the effect of drastically cutting the number of citations issued. It is not a result of driver behavior changing, but raising the bar for what a "violation" is. It is deceptive for them to claim that the presence of cameras have caused that drop in violations.
Paul Henry August 04, 2012 at 05:17 AM
Thin blue line- Yes, it is a lot of work. The "worse" idea is violating the principles of American justice to make a buck, as the cities and for-profit companies have done and continue to do by scaring people with bogus information. Personal profit? :) I'd be glad to tell you about all of the money I lose on political efforts. Unlike the 14+ ATS lobbyists (if you are not one of them, don't know since you are hiding behind a screen name)- look them up, they included the former head of the Dept. of Highway Safety and Motor Vehicles in the 2012 session- I don't pull down 6 figures per year. Unlike the "retired" chief of the Gulf Breeze police, I don't pull down $2,000/month to operate a program I advocated for when I was chief, and one that came about due to only one red light running crash- which was caused by a DUI. In the entirety of 2011, I was paid $1,250 from the Florida Campaign for Liberty. This pay was for lobbying for liberty issues- a REAL ID repeal bill, the Motorist Rights bill, and also to stop RFID chips from being placed on our licenses next year. I also gave away time speaking against mandatory septic tank inspections (there's a hot topic), which violated our right of privacy here in Florida. As of 2012, I've been paid nothing from anyone for this work- I'm $50 in the hole due to paying a lobbying fee. Load your magazine prior to engaging the target. Liberty is always a current hot topic with me.
James C. Walker August 04, 2012 at 12:26 PM
Are there really still people who genuinely believe red light cameras are about safety? With all the research and press reporting over the last few years, how could anyone be that naive? Red light cameras in Florida are a BUSINESS partnership between the state, the city and a predatory for-profit camera company. The state gets $83 (52.5%) of the take right off the top, without having to pay any part of the high camera costs that usually run $4,000+ per month per camera. With those high costs, the lights MUST be engineered to give most tickets to very safe drivers who commit technical fouls because there are not enough truly unsafe drivers to ticket to cover the costs or make any profits for the three business partners - the state, the city, and the camera company. In virtually every case, there will be fewer violations if the city just added one second to the yellow times. But this simple change to optimize safety is NOT profitable, so cities leave the yellows too short for the actual traffic speeds to make money for the business partnership - the state, the city and the camera company. Now that the multi-multi-million dollar revenue stream coming mostly from very safe drivers is being collected by the business partnership,, the only real answer is a total statewide ban on the cameras. Contact your state reps to demand this law. James C. Walker, National Motorists Association, www.motorists.org, Ann Arbor, MI
Rollo Tomasi August 04, 2012 at 01:50 PM
The cameras in other cities were moved when they stopped making a profit.. Ours will be too. It is simple The city, the police and ATS are predators and we are prey. you can tout all the stats you want but it always WAS and always WILL BE about how much money you can squeeze out of the public.
Temple Terrace resident August 04, 2012 at 06:10 PM
What rational person believes that lawbreakers should not pay (literally) for breaking the law? The cameras are great.
Paul Henry August 04, 2012 at 08:04 PM
Let's examine rational: 1. Is it rational that the person that actually breaks the law is not the one ticketed (unlike when a police officer enforces the law)? 2. Is it rational that local officials are making public statements about crash reductions when the facts do not support these statements? 3. Is it rational to withhold points, cap auto insurance rates, and lower the fine $100 for this violation that causes 1.2% of all of our crashes in Florida just because an automated for-profit device was used? The points system is very rational. Under Chapter 322, Florida Statutes, it was established to identify unsafe drivers and get them off the road. An officer's ticket carries 3 points. Get 12 points in one year and you lose your license for a while. It is entirely rational that if your goal is to raise revenue by getting people to just pay tickets, you should make it as difficult as possible for them to exercise due process in court: 1. Don't allow them a hearing from the mailed ticket. 2. Lower the fine over $100, and threaten them with a higher fine if they go to court. 3. Withhold the points and prohibit auto insurers from raising the premium. All of the above took place with the Wandall "safety" act of 2010, which authorized the automated for-profit devices in Florida. Who wrote that law? Automated for-profit law enforcement is great if the goal is revenue. If the goal is safety or legal enforcement, it is a bad idea.
Paul Henry August 04, 2012 at 08:09 PM
"Temple Terrace resident"? Shades of Bill Kroske- the "suspended" former ATS Vice President (who still has an ATS email account), who went around impersonating local residents in support of automated for-profit devices- until the local paper busted him. Here's the story from the source paper: http://bit.ly/OQwAz4
Temple Terrace resident August 06, 2012 at 02:59 PM
Despite all the conspiracy theories, it's pretty straight forward folks - Should lawbreakers pay for breaking the law or not?
Paul Henry August 06, 2012 at 07:08 PM
I'll refer the honorable gentleperson to the comment I made some days ago: 1. Is it rational that the person that actually breaks the law is not the one ticketed (unlike when a police officer enforces the law)? Yes- lawbreakers should pay. Not someone that the government cannot prove beyond a reasonable doubt broke the law.


More »
Got a question? Something on your mind? Talk to your community, directly.
Note Article
Just a short thought to get the word out quickly about anything in your neighborhood.
Share something with your neighbors.What's on your mind?What's on your mind?Make an announcement, speak your mind, or sell somethingPost something
See more »